So far, there has been little disinterested information available about decision-making within the Bush administrastion. Nearly all of it has come from self-serving sources, from whose first drafts of history one thing already seems seems clear: neither ther president nor ther defense secretrary relied on structured debate and disciplined dissent to aid in his decision making. Individuals who doubted the wisdom of invading Iraq or the adequacy of plans to occupy and rebuild the country were not encouraged to articulate their concerns. By adopting such a top-down approach to decision-making, the president denied himself the more carefully considered proposals and better analysis that a dialectical process of structured debate woulod have produced.
What’s to say he didn’t give more creedence to less advice from a smaller number of sources in a dialectical context? Maybe he just discussed it with a smaller, and more qualified group of people.
Because there were qualified voices available who got it right. Taking control of Iraq required vastly more forces, but Rumsfeld was set on this idea of a “smart, compact fleet”, and Bush just went with what his “gut” told him. Hell, Scott, I could foresee sectarian violence and I’m just a guy who reads a bit. (I’m assuming you’re Scott Mears. Pardon me If I presumed incorrectly).
But how could they have known the precise nature of the sectarian violence that’s ocurred? Who’s to say that the best intelligence based on what they DID know wasn’t what went into play, and not until after the fact did it become certain that we needed vastly more troops? If that’s what happened then you might say that now it’s Bush’s opposition, (who largely represent the group of people wanting to decrease troop numbers), who’s hampering progress toward a proper end in Iraq.
And yes I’m Scott Mears. Haven’t seen you around much lately!
The sectarian violence was easily predictable in light of the 3 historical enemy factions that would become unleashed once Saddam’s repression was lifted. Shias were repressed barbarically under Saddam and were in greater numbers. Once free to vie for a larger piece of post Saddam Iraq, it was inevitable they would turn on the Sunnais. I wish it were saleable to send more troups in now that the solution is clear, but the war is a no-sell at home. If a Republican campaigns on prolonging and enhancing the war, he’s guaranteed to lose and, pray it doesn’t happen, PRESIDENT HILLARY! OMG!!
That is why America is their to stop it from spreading and to put a stop to it. And you know it doesn’t really matter why we are their as long as we are their to help Iraq and the Iraqi people who so desperately need America and it’s influences. If Bush says it’s okay and it is going to get done then you better believe it is okay and it is going to get done!
It is not a civil war that is pretty obvious. The American Civil War didn’t hurt anyone except the people in America. Iraq is spawning all kinds of violence around the world. And we were invited into Iraq by it’s government and people.
Iraq wasn’t the place where al qaeda was running training camps, but it was a large stable government that supported them which is alot more important to them than a place to just to jump through tires and swing on ropes. Al qaeda exported the 9/11 attacks, the USS Cole attacks, the train bombings in London and Spain and all sorts of shit to northern Africa.
And of course we were invited. Not that we needed to be in order for the war to be justified.
Putting ground troops in Iraq was a mistake. We could have just bunker-busted Saddam using spy sattelites to figure out his exact location. Air attacks could have whiped out his military easily, with probably 0 casualities on the side of America.
Of course there would be strife afterwards, but at least americans wouldn’t be in the middle of it. We could have put a puppet leader in place (again without troops) to ensure Iraq turns out a Democracy. Sure it would cost money, but not as much as a 7-year war.
The simplicity of an uninformed mind. It’s nowhere near that easy. You can’t just go dropping bombs out of nowhere. There has to be some formality. Iraq would be a million times worse than it is now if we had just killed Saddam and left. Al Qaeda would have just tooken over or some other terroist organisation.
There are different ways of viewing the current situation in Iraq.
The sectarian civil war was predictable, but it was actively (and I believe intentionally) fuelled by Bremer’s decision to sack the Iraqi army shortly after the invasion. Not only did this make the project of ‘Iraq being responsible for its own security’ a longer one, it also turned between 200 and 500 thousand soldiers onto the streets, out of work and angry. Not to mention the literally dozens of abandoned military bases stocked high with explosives and weapons.
A quick and simple way to ensure that the war continued for years. A masterstroke, no less.
Exactly my take, save that I’m not sure the decision ensuring an indifinitely long war was made in contemplation of the factors that did in fact lead to its prolongation. The current civil war with Iranian intervention on behalf of the Shias threatens a generalized conflict that the US could not have ventured into knowingly. But I agree that the US sought all along a permanent presence.
And then there’s the amusing irony that private military firms like Blackwater (who’ve just been kicked out of Iraq for killing too many civilians) and Erinys who come in and using US money (from the Pentagon) to hire these former Iraqi army soldiers and then use them to supposedly protect those assets that they are contracted to protect.
So, sack the army to create a security vacuum and then hire a bunch of private firms who will in turns hire these same soldiers to do the job they could have been doing anyway before they were sacked. An amazing example of how privatisation can be a massive waste of resources.
Actually, it would have been a better tactic. War was never declared btw, so what I said could have been done no differently. Remember ‘Shock & Awe’? - Yeah, that’s all that had to have been done, save for gettin’ Saddam. A bunker buster bomb could have got him, or an Iraqi could have snagged him for America.
The civil war over there is not going to end until one is the dominant power. All we are doing is letting it drag on. I say let them duke it out without Americans in the way.
If you googled oil and the connection with the value of the dollar and got this link, please to the thread titled “oil and the value of the dollar”. This thread only mentions it, the other thread discusses it.